The Evil Offering V4 — 151 mm rear and 160 mm front (with an option to spec a 170 mm Zeb at the same price). The Following V3 runs 120 mm rear and a 130 mm fork. That 30+ mm gap front and rear is a meaningful difference in what each bike is designed to absorb.

The Following uses the extra wheel-on-ground time to corner precisely; the Offering uses the bigger travel to launch off things and survive bigger landings.

The Following, by a clear margin. It's lighter (most builds land in the 28-31 lb range), has a firmer DELTA tune that resists pedal bob, and the 76-degree seat angle puts you in an efficient seated position.

The Offering has a steeper 79-degree seat tube — great for posture on long grinds — but Evil intentionally avoided a firm lockout to prioritize traction over efficiency. Freehub measured the test bike at 33.8 lb and noted 'noticeable suspension movement when pedaling seated, even with the compression lever closed.' It still climbs technical terrain well; it just won't sprint up fire roads like the Following will.

The Offering, no contest. Reviewers across the board describe a 'trampoline point' in its travel that makes it remarkably easy to load up and pop off small features. Freehub called it 'poppy as all get out' and explicitly a 'jib machine.'

The Following is playful too — short chainstays and a stiff frame make it manual-friendly — but it rewards precision and pump rather than active jumping. If your trails are flow lines and jump trails, the Offering is the call.

The V3 frame predates the industry-wide return to standard 148 mm Boost. The 157 mm spacing lets Evil keep chainstays at a tight 430-432 mm while preserving tire clearance and lateral stiffness — MBR specifically called it a 'good workaround that doesn't compromise handling.'

The practical downside: you can't easily swap a wheelset over from another modern trail bike, and replacement hubs are a smaller pool. The Offering V4 moved to standard 148 mm, so if cross-platform wheel sharing matters, the Offering wins that round.

Neither bike is a plow, but they fail differently. The Following stays composed when you ride it precisely — most reviewers called it 'unflappably poised when pointed downhill' (Singletracks). One reviewer noted twitchiness at very high speed, attributed to the 66.6-degree HTA.

The Offering has slacker geometry on paper (64.7-degree HTA), but its suspension is tuned for pop, not absorption. Freehub found it 'less composed, stable, and forgiving than most other bikes in this class' the moment the rider got defensive in flat, rooty sections. Both reward an active pilot; if you want a true plow, look elsewhere.

At the fit-picked Medium on each bike, reach is nearly identical (Following 460 mm, Offering 459 mm) — but the Offering is 21 mm taller in stack (625 vs 604) and uses a much slacker head angle (64.7-65 vs 66.6).

That translates to a more upright, commanding cockpit on the Offering and a lower, more aggressive XC-style position on the Following. Chainstays are within 5 mm (Following 430-432, Offering 435), so both retain Evil's signature playful rear end.

It's new for V4 and broadly appreciated, but with a caveat. Freehub noted the hatch mechanism is 'a little tricky' to open and 'feels like you're going to break something if you don't nail the motion.' That said, the same reviewer reported it 'doesn't rattle and has stayed secure' over their test period.

The Following V3 has no internal storage compartment — that's one of the modern trail-bike features the older frame doesn't carry over.

If most of your riding is XC missions, technical climbs, or precise trail riding where line choice matters more than air-time — get the Following. If your home trails are flow, jumps, bigger features, and you actively pump and pop everything in sight — get the Offering.

If you're between them and ride 'all of it,' weight matters: the Following is meaningfully lighter and more efficient on long days; the Offering is more capable when the trail steepens and gets faster. Both share the DELTA suspension feel, so the family character is the same — it's the mission that differs.